I want make a "fan-in-wing thing" design

i like to draw fictional Aircraft with Realism
but i don't want to make "you a good designer, but your Aircraft Sucks" Thing

the Idea: Diogenes
a subsonic VTOL ringwing with Fan in wing (like Old BTZ ringwings)
but in several variants

-Cruise Missile
-Fighter Jet (rocket and machine gun)
Launch from Mobil Platform or Submarine
with Jato stile ZELL

-Service VTOL transport
4 of the "Fan in wing" like Bell D2064
for transport of Container, small Tanks, small Trucks
so 12000 kg cargo

Design
two Turboprop engine power two Propellers (over Gearbox counter rotate)
for Engine out backup and Antitorque (for singel ringwing )

the Turboprop are center in the ringwing.

question:
work that design or suck its?
can the Turboprops have Afterburner for more Trust?
for ZELL i have 2 system
one Big Solidbooster (see Picture) or 2 small Jato next to Turboprop engine (all drop after use)

well, I honestly have to wonder why would it be worth making into a cruise missile.

Michel Van said:

-Service VTOL transport
4 of the "Fan in wing" like Bell D2064

Click to expand...

The "ring wing" appropriate for use with a supersonic design is wholly wrong for a subsonic design. Needs to be fat and blunt to get some lift off of the leading edge while in hover. Preferably, you want the leading edge to be variable geometry like in the attached images... this increases the area of the lip and hense increases thrust generated at very low airspeeds.

Orionblamblam said:

Michel Van said:

-Service VTOL transport
4 of the "Fan in wing" like Bell D2064

Click to expand...

The "ring wing" appropriate for use with a supersonic design is wholly wrong for a subsonic design. Needs to be fat and blunt to get some lift off of the leading edge while in hover. Preferably, you want the leading edge to be variable geometry like in the attached images... this increases the area of the lip and hense increases thrust generated at very low airspeeds.

Click to expand...

means the Idea to use same engine for 3 different Aircraft type was a flash in pan...
so I can kick the Turboprops engine out Fighter and Cruise Missile and put Turbojet engine in
and go on Supersonic like SECMA AP.507E Mach 3 interceptor (see picture)

for "Fan in wing" like Bell D2064
I gona change the Fan to fat and blunt with variable geometry on the leading edge.
is look more like a Crossover of a Bell X-22 with a Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane (with no rotors)
because its transport Container and Light Vehicle

Thank a lot for the Info, Scott

Next step
i kick the Fan out concept...

Now is the design pure turbojet on basis Do-31 VTOL transporter
the hull is modified like the cargo plane Curtiss-Wright
I found in this forum.

this version let called it DO-31BOX has VTOL payload of 12000 kg.
in form cargo container (similar to Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane)

to the SECMA AP.507E like Fighter
that gona be Mobil squadron and Submarines ! (in Launch tubes)
and under wing of big bomber as parasite fighter.
picture of that will come

here the DO-31BOX
is this better to last design, or a flash in pan again ? ? ?

Seems not to be a bad idea, the question is just, why it never succeeded in
reality ? There were quite a number of such concepts around during the sixties,
the S-64, the X-120, the Savoia-Marchetti SM-105, or a large tandem rotor
helicopter designed by Percival. But not a single one really came to fruition !
Ok, I can understand, that a tactical transport of this concept would frighten
todays poiliticians, because every mssion into a real battlefield, probably would
mean the loss of a cargo pannier ... :
But this method could reduce turn-around times considerably, I think.
So, why it was never used ?

While I think the concept would work fine there are a couple of thoughts I have. The thrust of the jet engines would be similar to that of a Harrier, not the easiest VTOL aircraft to operate around. Indeed they do not land them in unimproved areas do to the good probability that they will create a considerable number of missiles from the high velocity out flow and will dig a rather impressive hole in the ground. Conversely, in urban environments where rotors can be a liability it would be able to operate more safely, although it would still create hurricane force winds.

As to the "Sky Crane" like pods, much of the utility would revolve around the simplicity of attaching and removing the pods. If the pods require special vehicles to move them around there would be expenses beyond the aircraft that would make it less desirable as a military aircraft. However if the pods are made to be efficient and minimally time consuming in attaching and detaching the concept might be a viable intercity cargo aircraft for the likes of UPS, or other volume carriers.